Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nachum

Alaska can stop Obama is his tracks.

First of all, “national parks” are an unconstitutional federal land-grab from the states, regardless of how benign or benevolent such act may seem at the time. The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

“[Congress shall have Power…] to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—”

National parks were not purchased upon consent by state legislatures for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, so national parks are unconstitutional federal acts. The states can make state parks according to the consent of the people and legislature of that state.

Secondly, because national parks constitute unconstitutional federal commandeering of state land, the state may reject and nullify such an act. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny - it’s just that some acts of federal tyranny begin with a happy face. Sates have the right and the duty to stand against such acts.

Here, Alaska can stop Obama in his tracks. First, Alaska can declare, on sound constitutional principle, that Denali was not purchased upon consent by the Alaskan state legislature for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” and can therefore, take back this land. If Alaska actually paid money to the feds for this land originally (I doubt it) then Alaska can pay back the equivalent or reasonable amount now. Most likely, the feds didn’t pay for Denali in which case Alaska can simply assume control of the land upon notification to the feds (NOT permission from the feds).

Laying that groundwork would make the next step of throwing Obama’s act of renaming Mt. McKinley back in his face an easy one.


9 posted on 08/31/2015 12:03:40 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Jim 0216; Nachum
First of all, “national parks” are an unconstitutional federal land-grab from the states, regardless of how benign or benevolent such act may seem at the time. The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

Well I once thought the same thing but the legislature and people of Alaska gave up those rights in 1958.

Alaska Statehood Act - July 7, 1958

SEC. 4.

As a compact with the United States said State and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to any lands or other property not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this Act, the right or title to which is held by the United States or is sub ject to disposition by the United States, and to any lands or other property, (including fishing rights), the right or title to which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts (hereinafter called natives) or is held by the United States in trust for said natives; that all such lands or other property, belonging to the United States or which may belong to said natives, shall be and remain under the absolute juris diction and control of the United States until disposed of under its authority, except to such extent as the Congress has prescribed or may hereafter prescribe, and except when held by individual natives in fee without restrictions on alienation:
Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall recognize, deny, enlarge, impair, or otherwise affect any claim against the United States, and any such claim shall be governed by the laws of the United States applicable thereto; and nothing in this Act is intended or shall be construed as a finding, interpretation, or construction by the Congress that any law applicable thereto authorizes, establishes, recognizes, or confirms the validity or invalidity of any such claim, and the determination of the applicability or effect of any law to any such claim shall be unaffected by anything in this Act: ,
And provided further That no taxes shall be imposed by said State upon any lands or other property now owned or hereafter acquired by the United States or which, as hereinabove set forth, may belong to said natives, except to such extent as the Congress has prescribed or may hereafter prescribe, and except when held by individual natives in fee without restrictions on alienation.

23 posted on 08/31/2015 1:19:12 PM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson